skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 223973   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Adequate, Stable, Equitable, and Responsible Trial Court Funding: Reframing the State vs. Local Debate
  Document URL: PDF 
Author(s): Alan Carlson ; Kate Harrison ; John K. Hudzik
Corporate Author: Justice Management Institute
United States of America
Date Published: 04/2008
Page Count: 155
  Annotation: This report presents case studies of how three States fund their trial courts and their funding mechanisms’ impacts on the adequacy and stability of funding, the equity of funding across trial courts in a State, and accountability for the fiscal management of trial courts.
Abstract: Two of the States (Florida and New Jersey) had recently shifted to primary State funding, and the trial courts in the third State (Washington State) were primarily locally funded. The study concluded that there was no clear overall advantage to either primary State funding or primary local funding based on the criteria of adequacy, stability, equity, and accountability: however, locally funded courts often complained about insufficient funding, but greater State funding apparently did not produce significantly more funding. Primary State funding provided an opportunity to equalize funding across trial courts. The experiences of the two States with primary State funding suggest that judiciaries under this funding mechanism developed more of a statewide perspective of the operation of the judiciary and the services it provided. Primary State funding also heightened the visibility of spending on the judiciary and encouraged greater accountability. Neither State nor local revenue sources apparently provided more stable or predictable funding for courts. More complete information about actual expenditures did not necessarily mean that spending was more cost-effective, was used for the most critical needs, or provided a higher quality of justice. Neither mechanism of primary court funding necessarily produced better management. Data sources included information collected through site visits, interviews, focus groups, and review of laws and reports. Information was obtained from representatives of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at the State and local levels in each State. 4 tables, 26 references, and appended research design and methodology, demographic characteristics of the three States, and a discussion chart for the context of State trial court functions for funding in Washington State
Main Term(s): State court funding
Index Term(s): State courts ; Comparative analysis ; Court research ; NIJ final report ; Florida ; New Jersey ; Washington
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 2003-IJ-CX-1026
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Type: Report (Study/Research) ; Case Study
Country: United States of America
Language: English
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.